Safeway World Trade v Union of India
Rule established
Validity of retrospective amendments in GST law; procedural conditions in ITC cannot override substantive right.
Facts
- Safeway held legitimate CENVAT/VAT credit balances under the pre-GST regime
- The GST transition required filing Form TRAN-1 to carry forward credit into the GST system
- Technical glitches on the GST portal prevented timely filing
- The department denied credit on the ground of missed deadline
- Safeway filed a writ petition challenging the denial
Issues
- Whether transitional credit can be denied solely due to technical portal failures
- Whether S.140 CGST Act creates a substantive right to credit or merely a procedural one
Held
- Transitional credit under S.140 is a vested right, not a concession
- Technical glitches in government-run portals cannot be used to deny substantive rights
- The authorities must provide reasonable opportunity to file TRAN-1
- Credit allowed; authorities directed to open the portal or accept manual filing
Ratio Decidendi
A substantive right to credit accumulated under a prior tax regime survives the transition to GST. The transitional filing mechanism (TRAN-1) is procedural; its failure cannot extinguish the underlying right. The government bears the burden of ensuring its systems work; taxpayers cannot be penalized for system failures.
How to use it in an exam
- Cite in GST questions on transitional provisions, S.140, and TRAN-1
- Relevant for administrative law discussions on vested rights vs procedural requirements
- Pair with the SC's Filco Trade ruling for similar portal-glitch transitional credit relief
Source
Source: 2022 SCC OnLine Supreme Court 1047
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
taxation-lawInput Tax CreditValidity of retrospective amendments in GST law; procedural conditions in ITC ca